Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iceland Dettifoss 1972-4.jpg

Dettifoss
Used by Dettifoss, picture taken by myself in 1972
 * Nominate and support. --Roger McLassus 15:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's a wonderful image; it hardly even looks real! Good resolution, but could someone clean it up some? Remove the hairs and other blemishes, and perhaps adjust the saturation a tad... they're just minor imperfections, but it should be done. --mdd4696 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to support version 4. --mdd4696 01:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Extreme beauty at its best. - Mys  e  ku rity  05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow! Amazing. I give this the strongest support I possibly can. It looks like it's CGI from a big Hollywood film! It's amazing! I'll try and clean it up tonight if I can. &mdash;Vanderdecken&int; &xi; &phi; 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There. Try that out. I lowered the brightness by 7 and raised contrast 16, then touched up speckles and artefacts. The resolution is also slightly reduced (to make it smaller, sharper, and because 2048 dpi is a round size). &mdash;Vanderdecken&int; &xi; &phi; 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second image, it seems quite a bit clearer than the original. That said they are both spectacular, with more than a little 'alien landscape' feel about them. Raven4x4x 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll support the third image as well. I have no problems with either the second or third images. Raven4x4x 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the second version. Beautiful. TomStar81 06:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, I’ll Support the fourth as well. TomStar81 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - wow!!! (to 2nd image)- Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the second image. What a beautiful waterfall! —DO&#39;Neil 07:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support something inbetween these two versions - the sky got burned out a bit in the adjustment... Well, fixed it myself, version 3. The photo itself is breathtaking! --Janke | Talk 08:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. My is now on the third image. &mdash;Vanderdecken&int; &xi;  &phi; 10:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support third. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if this is an important point, but I am the photographer, and I remember that the colours of the first picture were the true ones. --Roger McLassus 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there is never a "true" color in any reproduction. There are so many variables between the actual scene and what we see on our monitors; film, developing, scanning, gamma of monitors, etc. So don't feel offended if others try to improve a good image and make it even better... we're only looking for consensus here. (Remember what the upload license states!) Version 4, which Piccolo made to retain the colors of the original, is a sickly blue-green. I believe the Dettifoss carries a lot of silt, so the water indeed is a murky brown? --Janke | Talk 09:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Janke, things are not as impossible as you make them sound. Yes, getting the exact color of a real scene is impossible with an RGB display, however, the modifications are far greater than the color error we'd expect a human observer to measure between the real scene and a calibrated display. As far as consensus goes, if the photographer had the good judgement to perform 98% of the work in creating a feature worthy image, we should try to default to his judgement unless someone can make a clear objective argument (i.e. not 'I like it better) for the adjusted image. --Gmaxwell 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Version 4, which Piccolo made to retain the colors of the original, is a sickly blue-green. I agree. I was thinking that to myself the whole time I was working on the photo. But what if it really did look like that? Anyway, I was only trying to be nice. :)PiccoloNamek 14:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - If that is the case, here is a higher contrast version of the orignal that retains the original color cast.PiccoloNamek 06:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support version #4, on the condition that someone edit out the two turquoise blotches: one in the upper left corner in the clouds, and a very prominent one in the bottom middle, in the spray. There are also a few dark speckles: one in the middle top, in the clouds, and some more in the bottom right corner. Also, file size has increased by a factor of three&mdash;can that be rectified? 1.5 Mb is a tad large... And in any edits you do, make sure you do indeed preserve the original color cast. Versions 2 and 3 with their strong brown tint are just horrible. Lupo 09:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Man, I could have sworn I had gotten all of those. Well, I'll fix it later if nobody else does.PiccoloNamek 09:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re the brown cast - see my comments above. --Janke | Talk 09:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not offended. I just wanted to make this statement because I am the only one here who did not only see the pictures but also the real scenery on that day. Number 4 looks great, much better than the original picture - and the colours are still true. Can I change my nomination so that number 4 is the picture in question now? --Roger McLassus 11:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support version 4. --Lysy (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support version 4 and the original picture. +MATIA &#9742; 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support any of the 4 versions that are up here. Raven4x4x 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support any of the four versions. Thryduulf 17:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Impressive, especially for 1972 photo recovery.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support for original picture and version 4 Kessa Ligerro 10:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support any. Enochlau 15:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support (fourth) Excellent photo! Bmdavll talk 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support only version 4.Zafiroblue05 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 1 and 4. Go with the photographer's judgement. Although I question the accuracy of the inflated local contrast provided in 4, since it seems that it's managing to remove the real haze of the scene and not just loss of contrast from internal reflections in the camera. :) --Gmaxwell 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 1 and 4. Color of water better on 1 and 4. All are great, though. P-unit 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

